Uncyclopedia:VFH/An Article Written by Somebody that Didn't Read How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid: A Retrospective

VFH overview

All nominations

Feature queue

Recently featured

Recently failed

Archive

Rules

An Article Written by Somebody that Didn't Read How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid: A Retrospective (history, logs) (feature) (remove)

Article: An Article Written by Somebody that Didn't Read How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid: A Retrospective	Score: -2 words describing what an article written by somebody that didn't read HTBFANJS would look like.
Nominated by:	Le Cejak • <19:18 May 24, 2009>
For: 8	Hyperbole It's a pee review of a ten-word article that has since been deleted. It is amazingly well crafted and hilarious, and deserves some recognition, even if only in this nomination.   Le Cejak • <19:18 May 24, 2009> For. anyone who can use words as big as those words deserves to be featured on the main page. Pirate Lord__Sonic80 (Yell  •  Latest literary excretion) __ 21:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Outright Perfection! And that's no hyperbole! (Also, per my review.) —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 22:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Wait.... So the nommed article is a review? What was it reviewing? Don Puttano cHeDDs 00:17,25May,2009 00:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC) FOR, DAMMIT! I don't care if it's a Pee Review, it's hilarious. FEATURE! Saberwolf116 01:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Hyperbole. Mnb'z 01:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC) For. Style  Guide 11:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC) For. I went back and forth about this all weekend. In the end; Funny > Anything else. -OptyC Sucks! CUN17:00, 26 May
Against: 10	Against. - Good on its own, not the kind of thing I want to see on the front page.--Sycamore (Talk) 11:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Nope Nice read, but the pee review format ruins it. If it were changed slightly and set out like a critical review it is definately good for a for. In this format only the people familiar with pee review will get it. --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 12:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Against. Per the fact that I didn't find it all that funny. Also, without the reviewed article, this article has no real context. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 18:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Against. sorry hype but this just didn't make me laugh. However if formatting and teh fact its very different from other features are Syc and DJ's only reasons for voting against, please read Woody's Essay ~Orian57~ ~Talk~ 20:20 25 May 2009 Nah. (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Against. An insider joke for the front page ? --Romartus 15:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Read this please. No? Pretty please? It has been spammed on this page a bunch of times for a reason I'm sure. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 15:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Against. Wouldnt look good having a pee on the main page - - - Silly Angel Speak Contribs 23:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC) What about you, huh? Maybe? Maybe we can read that? Please? Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 04:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Against. --Docile hippopotamus 06:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Injoke --Moneke 08:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC) People keep asking me if I get tired of this link. The answer is no. No I do not. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 14:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Against. Didn't find it funny. Sir Groovester | Contributions | Talk Page 00:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments	I know the format's wrong and that we've seen a dozen of these types of "Her her, they don't know how to write good" articles before, but it's still pretty funny.   Le Cejak • <19:30 May 24, 2009> The review is hilarious, but where's the link to the original article? Or am I just being obtuse? -OptyC Sucks! CUN19:34, 24 May The original article was deleted. It was basically just an image reading "Now why would you want to read something like that?" —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 19:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC) If anyone votes against this just because it's a pee review, I hope they read Woody's essay. Saberwolf116 23:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Hmmm...Perhaps an Admin could Bring the article back for the time being? If this gets featured then the bad article stays, if it doesn't just delete it. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 19:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC) That's a very plausible idea. That or it could be recreated as a subpage somewhere if there's anyone against bringing it back to mainspace for some reason. -RAHB 20:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Abstain. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 15:30, May 26 I've created something in an attempt to get an article that appropriately explains the context of the Pee Review. Maybe we can feature this instead of just the review? I know it ain't perfect so please let me know if you have any suggestions. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 12:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

VFH

← Back to summary VFH
← Back to full VFH